InsumerAPI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List compliance templates

insumer_compliance_templates

Read-onlyIdempotent

List compliance templates for EAS attestation conditions, each with schema IDs, attester addresses, and decoders for KYC or identity providers. Use templates instead of raw EAS parameters.

Instructions

List the compliance templates available for EAS attestation conditions. Each template carries pre-configured schema IDs, attester addresses, and decoder contracts for a KYC or identity provider (Coinbase Verifications on Base, Gitcoin Passport on Optimism), so a condition can name the template instead of raw EAS parameters. No authentication or credits required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	true when the API call succeeded
`data`	No	The endpoint's payload: a signed attestation, trust profile, discount, merchant or token records
`keys`	No	JWKS entries (insumer_jwks)
`meta`	No	Response metadata such as version and timestamp
`error`	No	Error details when ok is false
`items`	No	The result when the endpoint returns a JSON array
`message`	No	A plain-text result (insumer_setup), or a message from the API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.16.0Oct 4, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The endpoint's payload: a signed attestation, trust profile, discount, merchant or token records"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Error details when ok is false"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "description": "The result when the endpoint returns a JSON array",
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "keys": {
+      "description": "JWKS entries (insumer_jwks)",
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "A plain-text result (insumer_setup), or a message from the API"
+    },
+    "meta": {
+      "description": "Response metadata such as version and timestamp"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "true when the API call succeeded",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.1.0Apr 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by stating "No authentication or credits required," which affects whether the agent can call this freely as a discovery step.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the payload contents; all clauses carry information (field list, provider examples, cost model). The second sentence is somewhat dense with parentheticals, which is a minor readability cost rather than waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description still names the meaningful fields and concrete provider examples (Coinbase Verifications on Base, Gitcoin Passport on Optimism). Combined with the zero-parameter schema, this is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, with only the number/ordering of results left unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about parameters because there are none to describe, keeping it consistent with the empty input schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ("List the compliance templates") and immediately scopes it to EAS attestation conditions, making it clearly distinct from siblings like insumer_attest or insumer_wallet_trust. It also enumerates what a template contains (schema IDs, attester addresses, decoder contracts), so the agent knows exactly what kind of object it gets back.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the purpose of the tool: fetching templates so a condition can "name the template instead of raw EAS parameters," which tells the agent when this lookup is warranted. It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, but the usage context is unambiguous for a zero-argument listing tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.